*1 Darlington v. Mayor, or&c., Hew York. Statement of case. Ctty
Thomas The &c.,
New York. legislature compensating The act of the “An act for whose entitled, parties be of mobs or property consequence destroyed riots,” passed April 13, is constitutional. Judgments rendered damages, to the of that for riot pursuant provisions act, against have the same judgments force recovered property for other cause of action. The owned is held it as a property by city corporation by public corporation, subject making to the legislature. law State vested subject held is not seems, property public use, etc., and sale on etc. But not held in trust for levy such execution, property subject. be thus use, may Appeal the defendants from order reversing judg- ment of nonsuit and new trial, defendants, directing with their notice of absolute appeal, stipulating judgment in case the of this court should judgment them.
The action was Court of Hew brought Superior under an act “an York, entitled act for compensating parties whose property may mobs destroyed consequence and riots.” ch. (Laws 1855, set forth the loss complaint personal ato small fire plaintiff, amount, by setting on which it was a riotous
building kept, by assemblage on the 13th 1863. persons, July,
On the before the trial, Hon. James Monorier and a jury, the defendants admitted the facts stated the complaint, the value of the was except proved plaintiff.
The defendants moved for on the that it nonsuit, ground did not volume of the Session appear, by printed Laws, the act was when three-fourths of the members passed elected to each branch of the were present; on the that its effect the defendants ground deprive of their without due law. process judge nonsuited the and the General plaintiff, Term, appeal, from is taken. made the order present appeal Darlihotоit «. Mayor, of New &c., York. Arguments Appellants.
John K. Hackett and Wm. Fullerton, appellants.
I. It at both that clear, upon principle authority, common would not defendants be liable this law, v. 1 action. v. Mayor, Sandf., 27; Levy (Boyland Mayor, v. 5 Howe v. id., 467; Mayor, Seld., 456; City Griffin 12 New La. v. Orleans, Lexing Prather An., 481; City of 13 B. of Council to Mon., ton, 569; Opinions Corporation, , 1849 to 1860, p. 23.) The act
II. which the relies to 1855, upon sup- plaintiff his does not to have been when action, port appear passed three-fifths of members elected to each house were present. 1855,
(Laws, p. 800.) that the final 1. Constitution provides upon passage bill which creates debt three-fifths of all any charge, the members elected to either house shall be necessary art. (Const., constitute quorum. 7, 14.) § can no doubt that the
There but act is within question Constitution. It was therefore incum- provision show, bent the act upon plaintiff affirmatively, in accordance with this constitutional was passed provision. the act of 1847 ch. (Laws 1847,
How, by 253, 182, p. 276), § it is follows: provided bill shall be deemed to have been
“Ho when three- passed elected to each of all the members house were fifths present final unless so certified thereof, passage presiding in the each law house; officer of every publication all is certified officer as cases where bill presiding of three-fifths of all the been passed presence having to each after house, State, members elected secretary add the when the bill became shall law, words, stating ‘three-fifths present.’ being
“The addition of the words ‘three-fifths being present,’ evidence bill was certified by .shall presumptive been officeras passed presence having presiding all elected to each three-fifths of the members house, the absence such words shall be evidence presumptive J was not so bill presiding officer certified
\ DABLinGTOiT [Jan,,
166 v. of Hew Yoek. Mayob, &c.,
Arguments for Appellants. far IH. The act so as it 1855, to create attempts defendants, unconstitutional. liability against defendants are 1. The possessed private hold same tenure enjoy upon they held it had would be case been conferred enjoyed 'on individual. (Dongan Charter, 6, 12; §§ Davies’ Laws, 157; Davies’ Montgomerie Charter, 1;§ Laws, 165, 169; BaileyMayor, Hill, 331, Britton Benson v. How., 251; Mayor, Barb., 223.) As their private property, respects disposition, free defendants are as from interference and con legislative ' *3 individual in trol as is the and any possession his of enjoyment Treatise, 73; property.. (Hoffman’s 44, Atkins v. Randolph, Vt., Green Abb., 505; Valentine’s Laws, 1199.)
2. All the interests and rights, franchises con- property, ferred defendants and the the upon by Dongan Montgomerie confirmed and ratified act of were the colo- charters, by nial in 1732. assembly evinced the act
The same chartered regard by rights manifested of framers the several Con in it each is that stitutions State, provided contained annul therein shall charters to bodies any nothing 14th of made October, or to 1755. prior corporate, politic on the Treatise Estate Bights (Hoffman’s Corpo 2d York, ed., ration of New 27-32.) real as in made are in estate, charters, grants in franchises are fee, perpetuity. grants to also empower charters “give, grant, all or of, or otherwise demise, dispose any sell, assign lands, rents, tenements, houses, messuages, buildings, and real all other estate, hereditaments, possessions, toas their and chattels and other aforesaid, things goods {heir will and at own them meet, pleasure.” shall seem has Ho citizen of State capacity greater acquire in freedom possession, management property, larger its defense and facilities for protec- or disposition, superior their charters, than is (cid:127)conferred the defendants tion, upon DAELijSTGTOif New Yoek. Mayos, &c., 1G7 Arguments for Appellants. and that which therein granted,
both as property respects is difficult, therefore, acquire. they might subsequently for the and claim that the foundation argument perceive conferred the defendants and franchises at is their charters, at its of and pleasure. dispose appropriate Surely liberty in the fact that cannot be found conveyance in or defendants estate known to the law, fee, highest or in the of franchises is perpetuity; per- grant of them to the defendants to mission dispose meet their own will and or them seem shall pleasure; that the defendants shall use and charter hold, provision forever the franchises right, properties granted, enjoy or from disturbance grant- without hindrance, impediment or in the constitutional power; provision, nothing ing contained annul charters to bodies politic therein shall made to the 14th of or October, ; corporate, prior it found the universal and uniform practice legisla- to be made to the defendants ture, compensation requiring in which their has instance been every corporate property even for a local taken for a public purpose, improvement. are These so and so reasons why argument many weighty are and claim why unsound, disposing *4 of the defendants is vested the in, property corporate the be exercised cannot by, legislature. once established the defendants possess principle that it
no sense cannot be private private property, the without their by disposed appropriated legislature the defendants would made, assent, upon compensation except the at tenure under Con- once deprived by which, ever and the decisions of have been stitution court, they as their and would be rendered holding regarded property, themselves, courts equally power- protect powerless As in matters of taxation, to afford them less protection. the sole necessity requires, legislature judge of that exercise which demands, and the public purpose unrestrained so the would legislature equally power, to the defendants granted property disposition Daelingtoit Mayos, &a, of Hew Yoek. Arguments Appellants. their if it charters, that case none constitutional limitations and restrictions upon legisla- tive when with would power, dealing private property, apply. It must be conceded that direct act of legislation annulling charters would be void defendants, within the of the constitutional spirit that noth- meaning provision, therein contained should annul ing charters to bodies politic to the 14-th of corporate, granted prior 1775. October, can it be How, claimed that the then, legislature, being pow- erless to annul or can divest the repeal itself, grant defendants of the and franchises properties granted, annul and thereby effectually as could destroy grant be done direct possibly correct and legislation. just construction this constitutional that it provision is, intended to all to secure under charters grantees', named, and franchises vested in them at property the time the rights, Oonstitution was One of adopted. the rights possessed hy the defendants under their charter at that was the time, right hold, and franchises enjoy dispose property “ as to them at granted should seem their own will and meet, inconsistent pleasure,” with right manifestly claimed to be to be exercised possessed attempted of the act 1855. passage
3. thus the nature and character of the determined Having defendants’ and tenure it is it now held, becomes material to what and to what inquire particulаr extent the act invades violates the question rights defendants.
1st. It creates a them their assent, debt without their with charges payment. private 2d. In its effect it transfers funds practical their to the individual without suf- defendants, consent, ferers from the riots.
In each the act is unconstitutional. of these particulars *5 16 Med v. Inhabitants Mass., Franklin, 83; (Hampshire 31 Vt., 16 v. Atkins v. Learned, id., 216; Randolph, ford 32 R. Co. Gazzam, and Steubenville R. v. 226; Pittsburgh Albany White 5 Matter v. Penn., 340; White, 484; Barb., v. &o., of Few York. 169 Arguments Appellants. John and 152; Cherry 11 19 Wend., streets, id.,
street,
659,
R. R.
18
v. H.
Co.,
id., 59; Wilkerson
675; Bloodgood
v.
4
v.
Taylor
3 Westervelt 12 N. Kern., Gregg, Y., 202; People v. Haws, Barb., has
4. The
repeatedly
defendants
judiciary
protected
from
unconstitutional acts of the
oppressive
unjust,
(Green Mayor, Abb., 503; Van Valken
legislature.
v. Mayor,
J.;
burgh
Opinion, Clerke,
People
Haws,
There no is difference distinction these cases and the one now under that under consideration, except act in the interference with the question private property the defendants more direct liability impósed more oppressive. unjust act of 13,
IY. The contravention of April being Constitution, no action right gives plaintiff. 1. It to be recovered defend- permits judgment ants for act not them own, over damages had control. no they
2. Execution such follow and the may judgment, private of the defendants sold to it. satisfy Even be held that 3. should execution cannot though is confined follow judgment, plaintiff strictly act, funds y'et remedy provided by In defendants be taken satisfaction may judgment. act is either case the obnoxious constitutional objection. liable an action The act shall be provides on behalf whose destroyed, party for the sustained. damages con-
It also such action provides brought Tiffany. — Yol. IY. *6 or New Mayor, &c., York. Appellants.
Arguments for manner as other ducted in the same actions, judgment from the manner for in civil provided appealed appeals further that final whenever actions. provides judgment the treasurer of said or shall recovered, shall he city county of said the same to amount judgment, charge pay said or city county. for here is an recov- one, provided ordinary judgment in a after the
ered a court justice, by prevailing party usual proceedings. it about is made is, provision thing peculiar only of the the treasurer of judgment by payment a is cumulative or it submitted, This, county. and still leaves ordinary remedy
remedy, party if to resort to it. he chooses execution, by “ as If, therefore, See opinion, Judge Monell’s follows: under issued recovered could be execution judgment ’ e th of the and levied the riot act, upon any its it obtained under charters, has by corporation, sold in and he satisfaction subsequent purchase, judg if the to dis ; compelled pay money ment or, I am of then the act would claims, these charge the constitutional objection.” be exposed conferred plaintiff When light and to recover thereon, his of action, judgment cause ex follows vi as to execution thereon termmi, the right to execution hemay matter course, right regarded remedy. statutory part of the. final determination A Code, judgment, A writ of action. (§ 245.) parties rights at the enforcement be issued execution for judgments after the five recovery time within years judg- it If ment. be against judgment (§ 283.) the officer to out it shall debtor, satisfy require judgment or real (§ of his property. personal unless obtains Whenever, therefore, party judgment, liberty he is at enforce restrained law, positively if mode of But even рro payment ordinary way. cumulative, can vided act is not plaintiff Darlirtgtox Mayor, &c., Yew York. Arguments Respondent. collect it in the manner still the
only prescribed, law is *7 in Justice Moxell, unconstitutional. delivering The of the court Davidson v. concedes this. (See See also what Justice Barbour in his opinion. says opinion, in the same as to the fund out of which a case, judgment bemay paid.)
The act limit does not who treasurer, required to any particular neither pay judgment, fund, does it that the out of which it is to require moneys be paid shall the exercise of the be raised by power. The taxing treasu- rer is out of required pay judgment any moneys whether the treasury, proceeds taxation or the corpo- rate of the city. has no treasurer, however, to make payments in his which have any moneys possession been realized other than
from taxation for those purposes designated under acts whose authority were moneys levied. The funds in the treasurer’s hands, which are not only the pro- are those derived taxation, ceeds from the private prop- the defendants. erty
In the 1863, year riot, there was year realized last mentioned than from this more one source, million three hundred thousand dollars. The directed payment act have would, to be made from necessity, the funds in treasurer, were custody derived from the of the defendants.
It is that whether therefore, apparent, payment is enforced or is judgment by execution, procured by act of the with voluntary treasurer, compliance statu- is the direction, tory private property defendants burden which bears satisfies judgment.
Thomas Darlington, respondent, person. I. The act of the objection legislature, passed “ An act 1855, entitled, provide April compensating whose parties property may destroyed consequencе not to have mobs or does been when riots,” appear passed Mayor, &c., Hew York.
Arguments for Respondent. of three-fifths of the members elected constitutional quorum not to each house were does arise in this present, properly case. that three-fifths were not
1. should present, allegation in the answer. have been averred (The People Supervisors 4 Seld., Chenango, 824.) that a 2. The law is, under presumption legal published far authority so government correctly passed, at least as to matters form. refers (Id.) did 3. The law require passage presence form a three-fifths to (Id., quorum. article 1 of the Constitution of
II. Section of
1846 has
or reference to the exercise
the State
no
of its
application
*8
in
The act
to
of taxation.
question proposes merely
and not the
of eminent domain.
exercise
power,
right
4 Comst.,
v.
Grant v.
Brooklyn,
(The People
419;
Mayor of
The
v.
36
purposes defined, defined, by or subordinate under State, bodies, quasi legislative acting power delegated by (Dartmouth CollegeCase, the State. Wheat., 629.) aof the citizens aof have no taxpayers county, city, interest these equitable funds.
legal have no in courts to They what one standing prevent of them deem a them. misapplication (Draper Roosevelt, N. Y., Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome 18Co., id., 155.)
IY. That, independently foregoing considerations, the act in for due of law question provides within process of the Constitution. meaning for a the established provides recovery by modes in ah actions, proceeding giving ample safeguards against and rests verdicts, inequitable illegal upon principles just and salutary.
Y. court below should be judgment affirmed, absolute should rendered judgment appel- lants. James Brainerd and S.
Cephas Stearns, counsel for nine hundred and fifty like cases. plaintiffs
Statutes similar to that under consideration Laws (Sess. *9 are a familiar feature in the 1855, 800) parliamentary history Britain, Great part system police king- dom. (2 Inst., 569.)
The British the statute of Winton or parliament, by Win chester 13 Stat., ch. (1 ed., about the p. 2, 3), year 1285, of the common principle law, that commu recognizing nities were bound afford to sufficient to the protection prop within their limits, of them erty duty peace officer, to riots and robberies Hawk. P. suppress (1 prevent eh. C., 68, provided remedy hundred, 11), against county, § in which a should take for &e., robbery place, damages caused to be recovered in an thereby, party robbed, action one or more inhabitants. against any
This 28th Ed. statute was reenacted ch. 2. III, &c., New «. York. Mayor, Respondent.
Arguments for ch. was the statute 27th Eliz., 13, 2, Subsequently, § all of such assessment damages providing passed, one or more. after recovery the inhabitants against ” “ the famous Biot Act The next of this charaсter was law 1of Geo. eh. I, 5, 1, passed by parliament consequence § accession of that tumults attendant king upon of action two inhabit- any which throne, right gave done ants of a or town, any hundred, city damages to dwell- assembled, church, so chapel, riotously (cid:127)persons, court at to recovered stable, &c., house, barn, ing be levied on the inhabitants, pursuant Westminster, Eliz. 27th (supra). ch. under 1, of Geo. II, Then followed statute § levied on was not any particular execution inhabitant. and 8 ch. IY, June, 1827), Geo. (21st the statute 7
By more and rendered efficient by were consolidated these laws amendments. further
We have been thus these particular referring long that it at a how be seen statutes, tried may English glance after a has viewed parliament; that, been subject hundred five course of years upwards, original but has remains untouched, unimpaired statute only cases within other principles extended general been and its remedies and rendered rests, enlarged upon that it also be seen what more effective; prin- under now law, discussion, ciples precedents and enacted. framed discussion of objections
Before entering upon specific let us for a moment of this law, to the constitutionality courts what approached spirit highest inquire of this class consideration questions. In &c. Penn., 164, Sharpless (21 147), “ There Ch. the court, J., .says: giving
Black, must us in cases like another rule which this, govern *10 of void that we can declare act assembly only namely, clearly, it violates Constitution palpably, plaJmly, when hesitation in our such manner as to leave no doubt or 175 v. Mayor, &c., of Mew York. Arguments Respondent. This
minds.
is asserted
of
principle
by judges
every grade,
both in the Federal and State
some of
courts,
them it
with much
of
expressed
solemnity
(6
language.”
Cranch,
4
3
&
87;
12
Dallas, 14;
178;
Serg.
Rawle,
id.,
4
339;
To the same
Binney, 123.)
effect,
Ch.
J,
Marshall,
Dartmouth
v. Woodward
College
Wheat., 518,
(4
715);
McCollum,
Ch.
in Ex
J.,
parte
Cow., 550,
(1
564)
Savage,
;
in The
v.
J.,
People
Orange
N.
Supervisors
(17
Harris,
of
Y.,
Ch.
Adams v. How
241); Parker,
J.,
(
First. That it violates sec. 9 of I art. of the Constitution of this which State, the assent of requires two-thirds of the “ members elected to each branch of the legislature, every bill or appropriating public for local or moneys private purposes.” That
Second. it violates sec. 14 of art. VII of said Con which stitution, of of three-fifths requires presence members each house on the final bills passage create or debts or continue revive make, charges, any or or trust or appropriation public money property.
Third. That it violates sec. 6 of I art. of said Constitution, which declares “that no shall be person life, deprived or without due liberty law.” process Fourth. That it violates 10 art. I sec. Constitution of the United law States, any prohibits passage “ of contracts.” by State, impairing obligation
I. cannot As the first The act of 1855 objection: a bill considered, sense, money appropriating (Town local or any purposes. S. C., Cornell, Barb., 615, Opin., Guilford R. Co., R. 143; White v. and Utica Kern., Syracuse Barb., 559, Opin., 563.)
II. As second objection:
1. The statute does purport under consideration effect in the section purposes specified Constitution referred to. *11 v. of New York. &o., Darliwtos-
176 Arguments for Respondent. immaterial whether fall it is does not within But 2. quite for the section not, requirements the enumeration with in all were complied respects. (See of the section Senate 6, 1855, Journal, April 1054; Journal, Assembly The in all cases 13, 1855, 779.) presumption April v. law is Supervisors Richmond, passed.. (Wolf properly 8 11 Pr., 271; Abb. People Supervisors Chenango, v. The N. Y., 324; Purdy People, Hill, 317, are in, The third fourth one III. objections essentially The favor of the all their elements. argument general in two distinct viz. : branches, law can therefore presented of thе to enact power 1. An examination of legislature 2. An answer to character; and, law of this objections enactment. to this particular enact duty
First. shown. statute is clearly easily is a This law State 1. recognition obligation members possession enjoyment protect fulfillment thereof. The was passed their property, civil subordinate such as. State, divisions, and its cities, result from the demand on the counties villages, part individuals community, protection composing life, liberty property. obligation enjoyment at each lies the foun individual, to secure this protection of the social This dation compact. obligation just as of respect rights liberty sacred on all writers all In this concede government concur; life. on Civil ch. (Locke Government, 9, 131; obligation. § et ch. et seg 9, 123, ch. Sid 7, 87, seq., 125; especially § § § . ch. 10; 1, ch. Government, 1, 2, on ney especially page § § Frederick Great's Ex. du ed.; Prince, 111, Edinburgh Works 188; vol. Sir William Works, 2, p. Machiavellis Lieber on Civil Liberty, 2, 38; 83-85; vol. p. Temple, vol. 1, 39; Polit. Phil., p. 48; Brougham 1 Black. Com., Misc. Works, Mackintosh Law, 89; Univ. Pub. Bowyer vol. 1, Gov't, Works, p. Calhoun on 598 ; ed., Longman’s 133, v. Jasen, Dal., et Talbot Com., seq.; 2 Kent's the corres- From this obligation proceeds J.) per Iredell, of Mew Mayor, &c., York. Arguments for Respondent. dam- the sufferer for to remunerate obligation
ponding furnish an a failure to from adequate he suffers ages *12 the constitutional And no one can right dispute protection. from the make to public appropriations But in for such respect damages. compensate
treasury of mobs or riots, matters of suppression police, counties i. is State, e., society, delegated to the modification within its limits, subject cities existing entire with what Then, control of superior power. also this while State, privilege, does granting justice burden subordinate society compensating impose upon furnish the a failure to for the from pro- resulting damages tection.
The
subordinate societies
these
respond
liability
individuals
inflicted
by neglect
upon
damages
injuries
declared
of such
has been
by
duties,
repeatedly
'public
v. The
&c.,
of cases.
courts,
(Henly
Mayor,
variety
1
The
5
3
&
N.
222;
Barn. Adol., 77;
C.,
91;
Bing.,
Bing.,
The
The
v.
Cor
86;
v.&c., Turner,
People
Mayor,
Cowper,
The
These observations are further confirmed elaborate by William the mode of Sir Jones, essay, prepared by upon riots and peace. (Jones’ suppressing preserving public vol. Works, 8, 457.)
It has been line suggested argument by
Tiffany,—Vql, IV. [Jan. Hew York. Mayor, &c., Respondent.
Arguments for shown to be State equally obligatory upon compensate sufferers theft and This without robbery. suggestion for the as now extends foundation, argument, presented, only to losses occasioned of men body acting together a breach of the Criminal committing (See peace. Code, 174.)
2. This statute wise exercise of the just police conferred powers Constitution, legislature by and reserved to the always reposed in, sovereign power the fundamental law. The statute of Winchester awas (2 police regulation. So these Inst., acts have ever Great been viewed our there been Britain, statute has remedy given by *13 uniformly accompanied directed by penal provisions, of the breakers the statute Crabb of peace. speaks “ of Winchеster as a reenactment of the old Saxon' law Life (Hist, see also police.” Eng. Law, 189; Romilly, vol. 1, 285.) Ingraham the same view in the case of
Judge adopts The v. Supervisors Richmond also Judge (supra); Wolfe Case Thompsons (supra). Lott, And the same view was courts of State adopted by aof like character. Pennsylvania, law passing upon The v. 2 (Donohue Penn. County, St., 230; v. Lavery St. Michael's Church The Same, id., 231; v. Same, note, 1 145; Harris, 76; Bright., v. County Barr., Leidy, And the for 45.) this law ground sustaining here, police is It regulation, affects ample. directly public opinion, Calhoun terms a “political touches power.” immediately “ all parties where the or destruc community injury ” tion occurs, both the and those whose rioters, compelling aid in it is to duty loss. riot, suppressing pay It convinces citizen that he has a decided interest every in the maintenance of order. See also The State v. good Brennan's (27 Ch. Liquors Conn., J., 288), giving Waite, In re court; Northern Hose Co. opinion Liberty Penn., 193, (13 opinion court, per J.) Burnside, The same is principle recognized Wyne- adopted York. of New Mayor, &c., v.
Arguments
Respondent.
v. The
See
People
hamer
also The
(3 Kernan, 378).
the Brick
v.&c.,
Church,
Mayor (5 Cow.,
Corporation of
v.
N.
Rosevelt Draper (23 Y.,
Com
538, 542);
318, 325);
v.
monwealth
Bank
Farmers', &c.,
(
Second. We now consideration of the pass objections to this That statute. relied seems to particular mainly be, law, under this New York proceedings of its without its thus deprived consent, which is claimed to be contract within charter, meaning the Constitution the United This violated. States, is untenable. objection “ The 1. a statute when confers principle right, means it, prescribes adequate protecting proprietor is confined to the (i. &.,claimant) con statutory remedy, formable to the manifest intention in such case, been settled in has, therefore, properly courts England country.” (Strong, J., giving opinion court, Dudley Mahew, Comst., 15.) Ch. McKeon J., Wend., Caherly (3 495), says, Savage, “ The statute giving court, must remedy in form as well as pursued substance.” also Smith (See *14 v. 13 Barb. S. Lockwood, C., 216; v. 209, 5 Almy Harris, Renwick v. Johns., 175, 176; 7 Morris, Hill, Durant 575; v. 26 Supervisors Albany, Smith v. Wend., 66; 5 Drew, of v. Inhabitants Mass., 514; Gedney 3 Tewksbury, id., 307; of Smith’s 596 ; Dwarris on 662 Com., Stat., Law (6 Lib., 23); Tit. Bacon’s The Act” Stat., “Biot a Abridg., B.) gives did before remedy exist, prescribes mode of final an action to be it, namely, enforcing prosecuted to the usual mode of according judgment, suits. prosecuting It then one provides only way obtaining on payment that is to file with the judgment; plaintiff required treasurer of the or a certified city county his copy judg- op Daiíluígtoe v.
180 Mayoe, &c., Hew Yoek. Arguments Respondent. that the fiscal officer is ment roll, upon required the demand. satisfy must resort then had a man refused,
If payment reason for could be damus, non-payment legal urged if that on that would then failed, application; legislature authorized for the taxation, provide, by payment would be within the decided in The claim. This principle The v. County Town Supervisors Chenango Guilford and The N. v. id., Y., People (4 419). (13 143), Mapor If this construction will relieve the statute from the objec the court bound it. v. tion now adopt (French urged, 1 v. 1 Ch., Quackenbush Kirkland, 117; Danks, Paige Denio, 128.)
(cid:127) But that the treasurer were to these 2. pay assuming that would this statute to the claims expose presentation, without due deprives persons objection property law it would not. The ? Clearly money process no matter from hands of whether rents or treasurer, either of or taxes, city county, placed public money bq hands for defined his public purposes—purposes subordinate State, defined by under a bodies, acting power delegated by legislativе quasi tax the citizens State. The county, payers city, interest these funds. v. no- have equitable (Draper legal Doolittle v. The Y., 318; N. Roosevelt, Supervisors of id., Barb. Kerr, 37 S. Co., People C., Broome N. J.; People Draper, Y., 532, 556, per Welles, J.) per Shankland, main this statute rests
3. argument against franchises vested in rights, proposition of Hew are held York, tenure vested individuals same pri- We contend that the vate known corporations. legal being, “ Aldermen and as The Commonalty in all Hew York,” is, elements, rights properties, that it has no existence what- public, municipal corporation; other and that dollar of its ever every capacity, *15 not We do contend that property. public or New York. v. &c., Respondent.
Arguments for have the that would appropriate right prop- in the for Buffalo, instance, purposes erty public that in that it has the do right but precisely if it to wise. New seems be York,
The authorities relied defendants do sustain upon by No such was the claim. presented consideration point nor Mayor Hill, case Bailey (3 does 531); cited sanction the notion court, opinion now Of the Britton v. The authorities, remaining urged. Mayor How. v. Edmonds Pr., Barb. S. (21 251), People (15 C., (9 Baker v. The Abb. Pr., Mayor Halstead 529), 821), v. Porter Taylor Mayor Comst., 430), (4 Hill, (3 140), in which can do not, aspect they considered, apply to this Benson v. The Barb. S. C. case; Mayor (10 v. The Abb. Green are not Mayor (5 Pr., 223), 503), authorities this court. The case Atkyns v. Randolph is not and is (31 Vt., law, demonstrated to be clearly, 226), erroneous in the that case. opinion dissenting In the Dartmouth Case the main College (Farrar’s Report), discussed whether Dartmouth was, was a question College And the private corporation (pp. opinion 41,181). Court of New Supreme Hampshire (pp. pro 212-215) ceeds that distinctly upon was ground college pub lic and the corporation, of the State was legislation upheld that In the solely upon national tribunal it was ground. conceded the counsel for the that if the institution college was was public corporation, legislation valid; as in main the court argument, was below, point of Hr. (Argument Webster, 247; Hr. Hr. Wirt, 280; Hop kinson, 295-298, decision especially 297); State court overruled expressly upon ground Dartmouth awas College private corporation. (Harshall, Oh. J., giving court, 319; Washington, J., 335, The distinction between J., Story, the two classes of defined and corporations acknow clearly the Supreme Court. ledged by J., Ch. (id., says Harshall, “If the act of 310): a incorporation political grant if create civil power, to be institution, employed *16 Dabling-ton v. Mayor, &c., of Hew York. [Jan,, 182
Arguments Respondent. for if col or administration of government, funds if as be or State Hew Hampshire, lege yublic in its the sub alone interested transactions, be government, act of the State on which may is one legislature ject limita unrestrained to its own by any judgment, according United Constitution of the by tion of its imposed “ It seem reason would J. (p. 335): States.” Washington, (i. the mere creature that such e., public), able corporation created advantage, institution, exclusively public of public than endowments such govern other king without consti its controlled, upon it, may ment bestow may in such altered or amended by government tution Such interest require. manner as legislative public which said to contract cannot be by interferences impair but because there is, was formed, reality, the corporation 254 Conn., to it.” also Territ v. (See Taylor, one party of the Court J., 262; Cranch), opinion (9 Story, Jackson v. 1 Swift’s Nestles, Johns., 114, argu Dig., ment of Mr. Emmet, 128.) can be there
If, law, Dartmouth Case then, College no as to the doubt appoint right this uses to public while not, recog shall be court is applied. Certainly that decision nizing authority, apply disposed That is covеr. which it taken charters does not, strictly, Co. in the of The shown case clearly Chenango Bridge 124-297, How. Pr., per Co. Binghamton Bridge (26 J., Ch. E. Darwin J., 310; Smith, 126; Wright, Denio, rendering court, 138.) “ Mackintosh bodies,” Corporate says (Works, 564, page “are instruments for a fabricated note), legislator are while specific purpose, they ought preserved amended when are beneficial, impaired, rejected they There are two when become useless they injurious.” distinct classes of and private; lay corporations, public founda- their distinct duties and rest powers, rights, tions each is difference ; created for distinct purpose. — between them the the institution specific ^purpose Darliítgton York. Mayor, &o., New
Arguments Respondent. case of out each, clearly pointed early Phillips T. Ch. J., 352; v. Bury (7 R., 346, see, also, Holt, the distinction vol. where between Com., 188, p. Stephens’ for which this marked, two purposes plainly *17 class of are clearly See, created, specified. corporations & v. Pass Ames also, King Angell Corporations, § more T. 119, J., 242, Buller, J., 246, (3 R., per Ashurst, J., 248). Grose, is the of New
What, then, York? corporation and defined but created for Nothing trustee, specific pur- no and no but the execution with powers pose, rights It created and in trusts. for its public purposes only, the the trusts of execution, by sovereign power, great To it of those trusts is part delegated, government.
for its use of what- those powers privileges, delegated it nature and is accountable to character, ever sovereign. All the can claim, State, is, corporation it is but a shall be trustee, appropri- property, ated for the purposes good government—those purposes it was vested in the Are for which originally corporation. of and determined those to be corpo- purposes judged defined and ration are to be creature, alone, they specified supreme power? latter, Clearly it is fit deemed wisdom, exercise whenever, legislative it The mode which shall perform functions, right. it it shall duties shall bear, burdens are perform, matters within scone of entirely acknowledged legisla- laid down as tive Is it to be action. law, supreme created State, having municipal corporation, and well known public for bestowed particular purpose, it a of its own to be used and portion in the execution of that purpose, employed corporation becomes the absolute owner of that property? thereupon Quite the is no more the This abso- corporation contrary. than lute owner other servant of the are invested with the control and use of State. They all muni- and for none and so with other; purposes, specific the main indicia of absolute ownership cipal corporations; Mayor, &c., Hew York.
Arguments Respondent. are These are wanting. municipal corporations endowed, for the benefit of the with a State, portion the State for the property, by itself; true, immediately benefit of the within the people dwelling corporation limits; and no but less for the benefit of all the mediately, truly, of the State. people cannot, therefore, disputed of Hew York holds its rights as a franchises trustee for the of the whole people State, so our courts have held several instances. In regard streets of v. Kerr Barb. city, People (37 S. Milhau v. C., 357, J., per 391); Sharp (in Welles, Court of Appeals, opinion by Selden, J., Daily Tribune, 21st in the matter March, Peo police powers); N. ple Draper (15 Y., also, 532); Shankland, J., 556; to fires, Valentine’s regard Laws Laws, 450; *18 ch. 1806, 126; 17 20 25 Wend., 285; id., 129; id., 126; 21 and Denio, 461; to the same Grant on generally, effect, 64 Law H. Corporations, notes. Lib., S., 146, 136/ The whole rеasoning upon point succinctly presented in & their treatise on Ames, now Angelí Corporations, on that at section 31. See recognized authority subject, in also, Dartmouth J., Case College (supra); Washington, McKim v. O'Dorn Bland Md. Ch., (3 417). What is the which the claim we are now argument by but combating sought supported? This, nothing this: creates with sovereign public corporation, to execute none but power public governmental purposes; to secure the fulfillment of those endows complete purposes, it with public property, sovereign, these creates a yet, by very acts, private corporation pri- vate the control of the property, utterly beyond sovereign. claim that the statute does not
We, therefore, impair for there is no contract within obligation any contract, that it does not take meaning Constitution; for there is no vested private property of Hew all York; that, appellants conceding to the manner of claim, respect obtaining payment 185 m. Mayor, &c., of New York.
Opinion Court,per Denio, Ch. J. these recovered under it, has' judgments legislature only designated New specific public purpose York, which certain situated therein public property should be and that this has been done in applied, fulfillment of the trusts alike in it reposed corporation.
4. We think it has been shown that the clearly legislature has enacted this law in the exercise of the plain duties of the State We government.. now one go step further, there is no say specific provision Oonstitution of an act like forbidding passage this, imposing additional burden and charge upon municipal corpora tions and counties of the and without such State, provision their is unlimited. v. 21 (People Merrell, Wend., 536; v. 19 N. Legget Hunter, Y., 445-463; v. Livingston Van 9 Dash Ingen, Johns., v. 507-575; Van Kleeck, 7 Johns., Bank 477-492; v. 26 Chenango N. Brown, Y., 467.) The collаteral effects of the law do not render it invalid. J., Tender Legal 87 of Case, p. Opinions; (Wright, 3 Wynehamer People, Kern., 400, per Comstock, 5 J.; Varick Smith, Ch., 137, Paige 160; Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Charles River Cow., 349, 350; Co. v. Bridge Warren, Peters, 592; Chenango Co.v. The Bridge Co. Binghamton Ervin's Bridge (supra); Appeal, Penn. Stone v. The St., 256, 268; Mayor, Wend., 181.) Ch. I am J. act of the
Denio, under consideration did not require presence *19 three-fifths of of the members elected to each house in order to become a The law. constitutional on which provision “ reliance in is these On the final words: placed passage in either house of of act which every imposes, continues or or creates a debt revives or tax, or charge, or an continues revives of makes, appropriation public or trust or or or releases, com- money discharges mutes claim or demand of the State, shall question any taken and be entered on be which shall noes, duly by ayes all the and three-fifths of members elected journals, to either in all house such shall, cases, be necessary
Tiffany. — IY. Vol. of &c., New York. [Jari.,
Opinion, Court, per Demo, Oh. J.. therein.” constitute art. quorum (Const., 14.) § is a article which the section of relates to the part State taken it and, constitutes the financial finances, together, sys tem the far as concerns of so constitutional State, restraints. of cities far The affairs so are counties, as they regu lated are treated inof other Constitution, provisions. v. The (See People Supervisors Chenango, Seld., of act This of 1855 not does a tax of kind impose any either or State Its municipal. provisions no may, lead doubt to the will of local necessity taxation; same be said act of of thing may every under legislation an or local in expenditure general purposes may be If a in a local tax any contingency or required. within be sufficient village section, will scope to have the when the law requisite quorum present shall come to be voted. The does not act create a or debt claim. If no should suffer or riot person damage no mob, be would no or money debt required, would ever charge be and until an created; such event shall no occur, debt oi claim be will called into existence. The legal principle, the act authorized imputes his agent prin does to the rioters cipal, apply contemplated by whose act lead statute, wrongful of a might incurring debt. would not be sense They any agents The Constitution relates to legislature. legislative acts, which of or their immediate themselves, necessary create a debt claim. Nor the act an consequence, bill the sense No provision. public appropriation of or were set or trust moneys disposed apart purpose not be if it could known when, ever, emended; being or what made, would be required money payment it would none be required; county the State consequence were expended moneys act. The other purposes provisions .the from, are more remote still included section, the act have no relation to indeed any provision in were Some of these adjudged positions question. sufficiently plain. the others seem be case referred to, *20 of Mayor, &c., Yew York. Court, Deho, Opinion per Oh. J. force of the if it is that shall act,
The by other objection the is termed. of executed, what private property be of law, use without due be taken for process public may It cannot and without compensation. provision that of the law are within general doubted but purposes of have' authority. scope legislative in all of to civil respect subjects government, plenary power ' from are not which they prohibited exerсising by (cid:127)' States, or some of United by Constitution provision of the Constitution this State. This act of arrangement of the several local to divisions of people subject proposes to cities, counties the State, consisting payment to riot or any damages consequence within the mob county city. policy make at be, act framed, may supposed good, the losses of those who be so public expense, may as without their fault to be own unfortunate, injured acts lawless violence of their particular kind which it is duty general government we farther, principally prevent; suppose, it liable to to make the interest contribute every person and violence, lawlessness discourage expenses laws established to and maintain the preserve empire These are within and social order. ends plainly public quiet it to attain and, of civil indeed, government, purposes and the means instituted; are pro them governments to be reasonably act seem adapted vided were less If this obvious, practice view. purposes of our we derive so many legal from which the country on the Laws no doubt subject. leave would institutions from the have existed England character this general Canute the institutions of was one earliest period. laws, the Saxon was recognized
the Dane, had escaped, killed, slayer was when person and if could for his marks death; ville should forty pay it. should the hundred pay then ville, be raised “it able author, says “This provision,” irregular prevention one every would engage thought *21 v. Mayor, &a., of Hew York. Opinion Court, per Dekio, Oh. J. of such secret offenses.” Reeve’s of (1
prosecution History down to the of the Borman Law, 17.) Coming Eng. reign in of Winchester I, find the statute (13th we ch. ed., 1, kings, the crimes of murder provision touching robbery, p. 1) — if the i. e., that the and arson would country, jury, for the the offenders, bodies answer people dwelling to be were answerable for the and robberies, county so that the the whole hundred sustained, where the damages with was the franchises committed, should robbery thereof, n It be answerable. statute that the upon action robberies hundred, committed of against therein, are met with in which so notices many old books, vol. I. Second ch. grounded. (Reeve, p. Ins., 17, p. the statutes and Passing subsequent reigns, par in that of in several Elizabeth, which this ticularly remedy modified been somewhat while its has principle steadily adhered we come 7th and 8th Geo. to, ch. IV, an act for which was the laws consolidating amending relative to remedies hundred. England, against acts several remedies prior providing repeals hundred for the occasioned damages by persons violently assembled, enacts series of tumultuously provi sions similar effect some very with, more respects in their than extensive those the statute scope under consideration. As the hundreds were not corporations, to be action was brought against high constable; sheriff rendered, draw his being judgment treasurer on the for the warrant amount county was to be collected Hltimately, money recovery. made local taxation the hundred liable. These provisions have no direct bearing but are upon present case, referred to that to show action is based question which is coeval with the policy laws one England, has been acted on that constantly country, hence falls within very clearly general powers the legislature. however,
As, objection out defendants arises Dablixgtoit Mayob, of New &c., Tobk. Opinion Court, per Denio, J.Ch.
constitutional restraint, identical with one of substantially Charta provisions Magna it is at least 29), (ch. curious coincidence, a local policy compelling to answer with their community acts of violence committed has by others, been considered English *22 as a rather than a parliament supplement to, of, violation the Great Charter.
In the statute called Arüouli Anno 28 swper cartam, Edward which confirmed the I, Great Charter and the Charter of the and directed that Forest, the same should be “ in and it observed was directed firmly every part article,” in terms that statute of a Winchester, gave for hundred, robberies committed remedy against it, (cid:127)should be sent into to be read every again county four times published year, kept “every point as the two Great therein strictly Charters, upon pains limited.” vol. (Reeve, II, ch. p. Coke, Inst., 17, p. that the statute it be sufficiently
Assuming apparent falls within question scope legislative general it violates whether is, authority, particular inquiry It is relied on the defendant. constitutional provisions if that it authorizes, will, suits which plain enough from the tax- result contributions successful, requiring to make losses of of the local communities, good payers In that from the acts of rioters. who have suffered persons their be taken. it be said way, may property it is it be conceded taken for In one sense may undertakes to for the State use; indemnify when public of that from public sufferers riots, executing duty It is a is on account. and the public concern, expenditure for in the same sense as expenditure money use the construction of houses and the erection of court jails, taken support poor. roads bridges, has determined for object Private of the State. the interest public importance, the execution thus taken not seized by of eminent domain. right Darlington- York. Mayor, &c., oe.New
Opinion Oourt, per Denio, Oh. J. all If it were so contributions exacted from considered, citizens for defraying expenses government in order to be local administration, would, legal, require return to the tax as a of precise equivalent payers compen- a. at be absurd. one will once see which would sation, Every if and that that this cannot be could so, were, government at all. But no is neces- carried on reasoning general has been considered for the elaborately subject sary, determined this court. In v. The the case of People Mayor, &c., Brooklyn a local made an act assessment, Comst., 419), pursuant
(4 defraying expenses legislature, improving on the as the same act. was street, ground present challenged individuals in a certain having property money locality taken and for the to be was appropriated public pur required and it that it was indicated; argued taking pose than due otherwise process law, *23 for The of opinion without any provision compensation. in all which was concurred the judges, Judge Buggles, the with clearness between seizure of discriminates great in the inherent the to under government levy of real or taxes for specific public purposes, taking or for a with either estate, unlawfully public object, personal In the former case, specific equivalent. out rendering receive to the burthens such public compensation contributors or the laws should the Constitution contemplated have, as they which of in the benefits goodgovernment advantage have that would receive from the they judged legislature It is to question. only necéssary expenditure particular is the this branch case, legislature add to interest and final as to what public conclusive judge and of the to be done, expenditure require good general The for be needed purpose. prin particular which may obvious, has, moreover, of itself is sufficiently which ciple, affirmеd in this court. Town Guil (The been repeatedly of The Board Chenango Country, v. Supervisors of of ford The 19 N. Brewster v. Y., Kern., 143; Syracuse, City the burthens There can be no objection imposing Hew York. &c., Oh. J. Court, per Denio,
Opinion the local in the execution of act, shall arise which occa- the riots take losses were division where place, all which This is the case with exactions, sioned. public and which their are local their from nature gen- objects, under the head of town, themselves city erally arrange are If look at we examining, we the statute charges. county the means as taxation, resulting ultimately occasioning will which out money raising required carry all will be observations foregoing purposes, me for the determination seems necessary appeal; am that it considered in that and I should be light. it is
But contended case application raises further and different of Hew York, question. city it is fact that under a char- The governed by corporation, certain does municipal not, course, ter conferring rights, The raise distinction. authority pre- limits chartered cities vails within villages, have the same there laws force the other That the State. does not admit of position parts (The People Morris, Wend., 325.) argument. to be that the form of the appears particular point individual money required pay
remedy faising leads to act, consequences losses, provided provision. violate the constitutional who would party a riot, cor- may prosecute has sustained damages if he and the act obtain ; provides judgment, poration the amount and treasurer is it to the pay charge *24 it that there is no will be argued may happen city. the be in the treasurer unable or may treasury,
moneys but the to make the plaintiff, having payment; unwilling cause execution may corporation, against judgment it its property city, to be levied upon property. further is
is private argued, an individual or as private corpora- title same holds by of the Con- under the it protection and that is tion, equally it is act, therefore, as urged, The effect of stitution. one designated private
the same as property though or New York. Mayor, &c., i 92 Oh. J.
Opinion Court, per Denio, directed to citizen should be be seized appropriated it local could not This, be pay public charge. plain, under the other head of justified any taxing legis- made lative The answer to this authority. argument, that the method of printed Court, is, opinion Superior to the collecting judgment by application treasurer, and that cannot be taken exclusive, on execution property such This answer is not satisfac- judgments. entirely mind. who had sus- tory my By permitting party tained to recover damages judgment course ordinary without the effect justice, of such any provision qualifying I have been cannot, think, intended to with- judgment, hold from him of a legal creditor. rights judgment The most universal of these is that of rights levying amount judgment against property debtor, the usual of execution. If it were intended process exclude that it is difficult to see remedy, why judgment should be to be recovered at all. permitted Without effect would judgment for it illusory cases, many would if that there would be funds in rarely, ever, happen to the of such treasury adequate applicable payment where should be for considerable amount. damages they is'of the same force My is, judgment other efficacy rendered judgment may of first against city, subject, perhaps, duty pre- it to the treasurer. senting
It is that it plain would not be a enough admin- judicious istration of the affairs of a its to be permit ato forced sale on subjected hence it has execution; become a usual to add to the sums included practice аnnual tax amount for which have levy any been judgments recovered and to authorize the bor- corporation, if in order to such rowing money, necessary, pay judgments. Instances of such occur in of the recent legislation many statutes. (Laws 411, 6; id., p. 1864, p. 938, 1, § § A p. 946, with a municipal corporation, equally § have if corporation, taken execution, of a far [payment is not made. I am judgment otherwise DARLINGTON V. MaYOB, &C., OF ReW YoBK. *25 ' Court, per Ch. J.
Opinion of the Denio, real or estate, such personal, from supposing^However, acts of the or authorized city government, as law, may by such as or their edifices, use, public devoted to be public or or public or ornaments, parks furniture grounds, for the be pledged payment debt, such may legally to can be seized cannot satisfy judgment. Such, clearly, are these structures for devoted case, public property, be in the same sense as-similar uses, to public subjects specific use the State that I argument government. am| other city may possess supposes property, examining income for or for sale, held unconnected with purposes use for Such municipal purposes government. the defendants’ counsel and for the insists, purpose to I be levied on and concede, subject sold argument the- rendered to corporation. satisfy judgment , that such seizure answer to would be a The true position of the constitutional violation protection private property! provision. not within sense of that that it is is, are emanations law supreme Oity corporations making are established for the more of the State, they power their within limits. In convenient government people chartered the erówn corporations respect, England, stand on the arid confirmed at same revolution, footing created Their with similar corporations legislature. and councilmen and other are as of aldermen officers boards as the the sheriffs officers boards supervisors, public truly intrusted their and clerks counties; as that is as care essentially management official administration of similar confided to the agencies In for reasons technical, counties and towns. cities, partly the title is convenience, and in founded motives of part , from shielded thereby vested body. the corporate law as the making supreme control of legislature, the owner Let of the State. us suppose use, but of a land not municipal parcel adapted purposes,, valuable building sale private persons only it would can but what or the ISTo I doubt think, one, .like. be sold, for the to direct competent — Tiffany. IY. Yon. *26 ' Darlington or Hew &q., York. Dentó, the J. Court, Ch.
Opinion per to he devoted to some proceeds or other municipal public | ! within a purpose, as court a city, or house, hospital, ' if like; on behalf of yet, the defendants is argument it
sound, would be the taking private property public use without and the act would compensation, be void.
What-has been done actually such respecting city property, if a for riot present case, has judgment damages effect which the I argument which attribute to supposes, it, is to render it liable to sale on to a execution, satisfy of the under the riot liability city arising act; this has been done under the of the express authority legislature. The vice of the defendant that it argument assimi is, lates the condition of the in to the to city, respect it to which has that of an a title, individual or private corpo to the ration, denies over it legislature any power it would not over the fortunes of a possess citizen. private I have stated views to this rather my opposition theory it but' has not been done an manner; without dogmatic of the which we have examination eases been referred to, have such as been within and as much others my reach, I reflection could bestow on I in a as will subject. state, effect of In the brief these authorities. manner, very v. Dartmouth College (4 Wheat., case Woodward 518), whether of the was, particular question was warranted certain State Hew Hampshire passing the charter statutes, many important particulars, altering, of Dartmouth College, assuming execution its franchises corporate regulate according . views of claimed public was expediency. college that this prohibited legislation provision Constitution of the United States the inviolability declaring and the answer to that claim was, that the contracts; institution of the State of Hew was public college Hamp control the law and- hence shire, subject making of that The main State. therefore, was, power question, it was a whether corporation. public judg in a it limited sense, ment was, that, was, public, although virtue of the as artificial laws, being existing of Mew York. &o., Manor, Oh. J. Denio, per Opinion Court, this character which respect partook belongs all when State, yet, corporations; looking as such as bank was to private corporation, regarded out It is not point manufacturing company. important manner in conclusion was the case reached, here referred to with to the distinction view between only the two classes of corporations authority legis *27 lature On over them behalf of the State respectively. ¡New it that the was Hampshire, argued prohibitory provision, of the Constitution should be understood to comprehend relations between the and its citi political government or officesheld for zens within State State ; purposes; civil those laws institutions which was said concerning might and be modified act of the circumstances, with change Chief Justice Marshall that the said, general legislature. could not and he correctness of these be positions doubted; “ that if the act of be a added, incorporation politi grant if it create a civil cal institution be employed power; if the funds of the administration government; ¡New ifor the State of be Hamp college public property; be interested its transactions, as alone shire, government, of the State is one which may subject lim to its own unrestrained by any act judgment, according the Constitution itation imposed by powers But he far from held so that, this, United States.” college the body eleemosynary institution, corporate was private the whole interest, possess legal equitable possessing the Constitution. which were civil ing protected by rights that there two kinds of were “ Mr. Justice Washington said, as such were for viz., public govern corporations aggregate, “ first,” character.” he and others of ment, “ or the towns, cities, are for those said, government are to and, advantage, governed like, being public he of the land.” were said, These, 'laws according created institution, exclusively mere creatures public reasonable, he proceeds It would seem public advantage. and its con that be controlled, such say, corporation such and amended by government, stitution altered I &c., of 27ew York. Darlinotoit Oh. J.
Opinion Court, per Denio, manner as the interest Such public may require. legislative cannot interference be said to the contract which impair there is in formed, because but corporation reality one trustees or it; party governors for the the oestmi trust trustees being merely public, que Com. corporation. (Story’s Const., 1, p. § 2 Kent Com., p. expression Chаncellor Kent, where Commentaries, municipal corporation to have and hold such empowered private property, invested with of other security is under private rights, stood to mean such only possesses rights against and not that it is from wrongdoers, exempted legislative control. These trustees or have no governors rights, interests, or immunities which are violated such interfer privileges at ence. Justice himself place cited, expressed Story, a similar mentioned cities and effect,'and towns, counties, instances of which were corporations subject legis from lative control. citations Similar cases and adjudged works it is systematic but added, might presumed *28 will not be The statutes of State principle questioned. furnish of too numerous for ‘the instances, citation, interfer ence of the with the of the legislature corporate government of York. If the that Kew like of Dartmouth city charter, and of College, independent private legislative interposi these acts would be void the of tion, the principle case cited, the judgment city regulation be confined to would the government brief con prescriptions in the charter tained of the colonial governors.
But it is fair to not to the defendants’ counsel impute so distinc- position extravagant. They rely upon supposed tion between rights powers execution of is to what conceded be its and munici- political and its title and its acts, to, over pal rights powers . within its control. In its property to respect powers, is to be the corporate understood trustees of the body people represented State, supreme legislative power but in to its is it that there are no regard property argued , beneficiaries. it is property, insisted, private, Dablingtok York, of New Mayor, &c., Opinion Court, per theOf Oh.J. Denio, hence has no control over If legislature legitimate it. this is sound position, judgments are every day rendered for its duties neglect corporate streets and for the non- respect public places, its and for other contracts, causes performance action, not cannot be satisfied out of the only property city, but act of its should sale require of such would be the application payment judgments, use without taking private public provi- and void. sion would be compensation, illegal which has been created sinking fund, by legislative authority, and which embraces saleable lands owned by city, be an debt of the would unconstitu- city, protect and a void But in what sense can this tional creation. not be be ? It does certainly said belong the common or or all the members of mayor as individual
council, nor to common people one of these func- If Y., N. (Roosevelt Draper, it it or avails own tionaries should his use, appropriate and if one of the the crime of embezzlement, would be should do the it not clothed official station like, with people it be said like be the offense would larceny. Should to the ideal the cor- being, all belongs corporate property, and that its title beneficial fiduciary, poration, Indeed it would not would not avoid difficulty. answer human wants to has no A such, sound. corporation, ' or live It eat or wear clothing, cannot drink, supplied. or trustee somebody, houses. representative We cannot conceive *29 persons. some aggregation which does not hold an idea of : corporation aggregate The for some use, and franchise private. held the trustee was to be of Dartmouth College corporation and moral education or of the needing оf the donors, youth of New York, The and intellectual corporation training. city. inhabitants trustee
my opinion, a substantial, although The property, general in, are They for them. trust technical is held sense, subdivision State—inhabiting particular people v. Mayor, &c., or New York. [Jan. Denio, Opinion Court, per Ch. J. —
of its class out of territory fluctuating constantly passing removal and trust and as scope by death, constantly renewed fresh accretions of It was population. by granted for their use and is held for their The benefit. powers local committed to the are government precisely of the same character. were and have been They granted confirmed of the same good government regulated and obedience to amel- order law, public, preserve iorate and their condition and their subserve con- improve venience as community.
There are
few cases which
to a certain
countenance,
the views of the defendants’
which will be
extent,
counsel,
In
noticed.
v. The
briefly
Bailey
Mayor, &c.,
City
an
New
action
York
to recover
(
Opinion Oh.J. in its character, municipal body public, political corporate were on the other those conferred whether, hand, powers If the or emolument. advantage purposes private he that the former were the true considered defend theory, ants but that the latter case were responsible, they he held the defendants were to be would and be; as a like work, private company, regarded, respect a and bank or railroad corporation, consequently liable for the interference of the was water com a that there in the He conceded was missioners. enterprise created some blending private objects, said that but whole the dis difficulty mind; upon tinction clear well was quite defined, He a referred number practicable. cases, separation to. Dartmouth with College commencing Wooodward, v. The East India Brown including Moodamay Company (1 which last case much at is stated Ch., very 469), large distinction decisive clearly defining being quite upon It was an action a lease which defend question. him had ants permitting given plaintiff, supply of Madras with tobacco for ten inhabitants years, had had the defendants revoked, alleged illegally for a another. bill was dis privilege granted whether action question was, but covery, general lie for such a the defend would company cause, against done that the acts of were complained ants contending The master a their functions as exercise of sovereign power. admitted that sustained could,not suit rolls held that the but prin power, that court sovereign He said that as private to the case. did not apply ciple contract, into a had entered the defendants company ad chief had If the justice liable. must be on which they India the East character of Company, known to the well verted the case was inapplicable. quite have seen would he with created for trading purpose stock corporation, dividends of India, regular making the native inhabitants affairs through pecuniary on the stock, managing time, In in London. process board directors sitting *31 v. Mayor, &c., or New York. Opinion Court, per Dejtio, of the Oh. J.
and at the of this it probably had period decision, acquired, or been to vast permitted exercise, powers government, have since been transferred to a powers board of con- trol a crown. As it appointed by trading company and is a conducted for the private corporation, purpose individual and no liable on emolument, is, doubt, its contracts with in the same manner as natural individuals, persons The lease was a private corporations. contract for trading with the which the natives, had and company sub- violated, itself to as jected private damages other company. cases referred to of the opinion have Supreme Court, direct under upon question bearing consideration. If this case of had rested Bailey Mayor where it was left I should Court, Supreme,. though to obliged my inability appreciate distinctiоn acknowledge sug- between functions of gested the city would have been entitled government, judgment to cer- tain But a new trial took weight authority. place, pursu- ant to the when the Court, judgment Supreme plaintiff recovered a and the case was verdict, very large presented the Court for the Correction of whose Errors, judgment affirmance in 2 433. The chancellor and reported Denio, three senators delivered written in favor of affirm- opinions of the senate an ance, president fot reversal. opinion Hone of the even alluded to the taken in opinions ground, Court. It was opinion Supreme considered by all the delivered members who opinions that affirmance, were on public corporations account of their responsible and their legal personality capacity suing being sued, for the acts of their negligent servants in agents execution of their and the main duties; question, was much whether the discussed, was, relation of principal existed between the agent engineers others who constructed the that the water dam, com- seeing missioners were The chancellor appointed by legislature. to make was unable out that his relation, placed for affirmance owner of who ground land, every allowed others to erect nuisances or suffered his thereon, Y of New ose. Mayos, &o., Daeldíctoh
Opinion Denio, Court,per Oh.J. a situation as such produce injury premises and as the for such injury: city corpo- is answerable others, land, on which the dam was the owners ration were liable Senator were he held they principle. erected, the State as conducting enterprise considered Hatto and said that sovereign power, corporation, through if it'become member of cannot be sued, yet though *32 as to that transaction aside its corporation, lays sovereignty and Bablow considered Senators Boxee that or character. of the act the their of acceptance corporation, by the commissioners their bj water constituted agents the defendants established court by The of being liability on an different from ultimate that entirely theory of review, water into affirmed enterprise conveying which as from a act to be work, distinguished city private the doctrine of opinion municipal government, substantially Court repudiated, cannot, was Supreme It is but the considered as precedent. therefore, and learned and does associates, chief the eminent justice settle cause action, final like a adjudication upon not, law. any principle The v. &c. How. Mayor, (21 Britton Pr., case of
The in the former in Court, Supreme decided was 251), pot Hill was the it was late Nicholas but reporter; while After often in referred to in his reports. being published of the character prove manuscript, in Howard’s it was finally printed the corporation, held by It afterwards. was an action fifteen years Practice Eeports, and common a contract between on plaintiff brought to clean the streets the former was council, by decided on. was for a consideration agreed on the demurrer ground complaint, the plaintiff of the of the several duties that arrangement legal could in question of the the work branches government, a method made the as such not contract, subject the leg control what styled would or embarrass proceeding ' islative common council. in but soundness of that decision not now questiop; Ttffajty.—Yon IV. Mayor, &c., or Hew York. Court, Opinion per Denio, Ch. J. the chief at took determination, occa arriving justice
sion to
that
vested
assert,
many
powers
privileges
were,
held
as
corporation
private corporation,
it held a mass of
interests in
private rights
real and
same
similar
personal,
way
property,
was held
and the case of
by private persons;
Bailey
&c.,
referred to
was
that case
authority,
then
the Court of
being
passed upon by
Errors. So far
as it
was intended
assert that the
of,
management
owned
bargaining respecting specific property
by municipal
was
the same character as that
substantially
used
their
private persons
corporations,
transactions
similar
concerning
remarks were eminently just,
and the assertion of that
all
position
was essen
tial to
That
argument
opinion.
argument was,
provide
duty
streets was
cleaning
legisla
tive
and not
character,
properly
contract
subject
like
which are made in the man
stipulations,
arrangements
*33
of
owned
the
agement
specific property
by
There was
city.
in this
which called
case
for a
nothing
determination as to
character
the
of the
of such
in
ownership
respect,
to the distinction of
or
on the
of the
power
If
it.
of the
legislature respecting
expressions
chief
have
can
the construction that
justice
such property
a
owned
in
corporation
all
by municipal
held,
and.
respects
in
in
.be
every aspect
or
viewed,
to
regard
the
over
like
legislative
it,
authority
precisely
held by
the
private corporations
individuals,
language unguarded
and cannot be sustained.
case of
The
Benson v.
&c.
is a
(
.The Term decision of the late Special the Judge denying Basculo, an for plaintiff’s the cor application injunction restraining York from Hew poration certain franchises granting ferry the between Island. The city claimed to Long plaintiff have from certain under an grants commissioners, appointed act the who were legislature, passed thereby authorized to licenses the between grant ferry Long a but were not to Island; they license grant any ferry Dabliítgtozt &c., oe Yew Ycibk. Mayob, Court,per Denio, Opinionof the Oh. J. franchises or
ferries which should interfere with the rights, aldermen and mayor, commonalty privileges in and York, established, to ferries Yew alre.ady was denied on &c. ground injunction did had made to the which the commissioners plaintiff grant interfere with the ferries established already corpora- by and which were excess of tion, powers regarded and in the statute. This violation of commissioners, does not touch before us; decision, course, any question the learned able but judge prepared long argument held of fer- that the show subject rights could not control. It is not worth ries which the legislature an to examine at while opinion length positions decided. aside from Many positions wholly point are incontrovertible: such as rights grantees of contract ferries, upon footing corpor&tion existing (cid:127) far constitutional as the So protected provisions. interfere with thé cannot
argues the charter on the conferred corporation, regard in all that' I to concur should not be able ferries, ungranted defin- refrains from Indeed, pronouncing said. judge that branch of the itely upon subject.
In the case of v. Hawes Barb., People (37 440), made in motion was Court for mandamus Supreme him city; compel pay comptroller which had been awarded relator sum of money large to an arbitrators, act,, legislature, appointed pursuant if entitled to receive determine were what, anything, they contract for from the breach of the. city, alleged in the new reservoir of the of certain houses building gate *34 had denied the The legal Croton water works. corporation consummate and refused to of the contract, existence and the the do work, legislature to the to allow relators an arbi for providing the act question, thereupon passed but arbitrators, The appointing tration. joined mayor which, at the trial; upon did not for the appear counsel city hear an expa/rte the city upon the made award was against a mandamus, for motion Term denied The ing. Special Daelingtok v. Matos, &c., of Neat Yoek. Opinion Court, per Oh. J. Demo, on the that it did not that the single ground appear comp- troller had in his to any money city hands, applicable of which out the award could be On object, paid. to the General the order appeal was affirmed. One Term, to the ground affirmance, according opinion, if the relators had a demand there awas city, and that where remedy by action; such exists, remedy ' a mandamus will not lie. But the denied court, moreover, power law legislature pass obliging city to submit an arbitration in a case. That such position was based the constitutional provision pri- protecting vate relied on the defendant in case. present If the transaction were between I doubt private persons, but that this provision one preserving right trial by would have if jury, been fatal to the case. So, had been a city But private corporation". and its. being public, charter and franchises corporate being subject I legislative control, am of legis- lature had a of its oavu right, to create board authority, adjustment without claim, consent the city. It be that could not they inter- compel private parties, to submit ested, to such a tribunal, had a they legal in a right prosecute action; but the regular legis- lature had full control over the city. of the several subjects I actions, have cases been were as matters of
examining, clearly municipal government, which could be presented. Nothing could, "nature of less of a things, partake than the private character of water to, supplying streets of a cleaning town a million of inhabitants. If containing nearly these were not and under the control of subjects legisla- is not subordinate ture, to the supreme legislative conceivable subject. imperwm imperio.
Another case State, decided a sister doctrines containing (Atkins hostile views I have be mentioned stated, may v.The Town Vern., 226). Randolph, in a section of an act Vermont, intemperance, suppress *35 Mayos. Dakliitgton v. of New &c., Yobk. Court, per
Opinion Desio, J.Ch. a' had commissioner should be county enacted elected, an for each who to agent town, might appoint purchase to on its for sale for account, kept liquors agent all other medicinal were selling liquors pro- purposes; Mann hibited. One was for the town appointed agent in'that and, Randolph, character, purchased liquors on the credit of but had plaintiff town, his trust, betrayéd in not over the of the sales made him. paying proceeds to The action recover was town brought price so The court held the law uncon- liquors purchased. as a violation of the stitutional, provision protecting private the bill which contained was rights, part and was similar terms with Constitution, provision (cid:127) of the Constitution of this State so often mentioned. The denies the of the State opinion, course, to right make on the public regulations binding town-without consent of the which involve inhabitants, to obligation It is to the pay money. conceded opposed right, invariably here make such stands no regulations, upon principle. in an Its able of one fallacy exposed dissenting opinion states the lаw which as I have upon judges, subject endeavored to it. explain (See People Morris, ’ Wend., 325.) are the cases with principal foregoing bearing, directness, whether degree point specific property held to the law by municipal corporations subject making vested in the it is whether legislature, protected action the constitutional refer- against legislative provision red to. have shaken the
They not, any respect, I have above whether expressed. unnecessary say - would extend to jurisdiction diverting legislative to other use than such as concerns the city, or its if the effect attrib-1 inhabitants; act, suggested uted I for riot devotes the judgment damages, be seized on execution legitimate city purposes, those have suffered namely, who reimbursing damages ‘ account of authorities inefficiency protect of Hew York. &c., *36 dissenting. J.,
Opinion, per Ingraham, am of the I from mob. aggressions property private on from affirmed, the order should be , appealed opinion the raise the means statute to provided by the ground not hostile the were for damages question to money pay (cid:127) of the Constitution. to any provision J., though the concurred, who, All except judges Davies, of the chief from views dissented some affirmance, for the and Ingraham, to corporate property, in respect judge, an for reversal. delivered who J., in this J. involved case is, question Ingraham, act the or county making city whether shall in conse- property destroyed in which injured moh or liable to an action any riot, the by party quence - his for damages»^¿ injured That such to law, applicable counties, may passed, and' that the law the authorize raise supervisors to make such I doubt. sums have no necessary payments, It -is without private not, then, taking compensa рroperty hut mere been which has tion, legislature, taxation sanctioned, compel repeatedly payment by in their are chargeable moneys, judgment properly taxed. Richmond the inhabitants so (Wolfe Supervisors of aBut different unty, Abb., Co very question are not arises to municipal corporation. as They only franchises, bestowed holders of them powers by hold from but derived other they the-legislature, and which than the hold legislature, they by sources same title, only liability subject same right jfcom taken individuals. Such cannot he private for nor can it be taken law; them, use, for by .amounts of without use, compensation. Large prop are"held Hew York, by erty and the income of such by such title, act, by these claims. Various liable to the laws is made payment have been by legislature prohibiting corpora passed raised from taxation, tion from moneys, being using than other" specially designated by used purpose ‘ Daelington &c., of Few Yoek. Mayob, Opinion, per Ingraham, J., dissenting.
act the tax. And this law authorizing levying yet, makes it the of the treasurer of the duty pay amount of recovered and to any judgment city, the amount treasurer charge paid city. Clearly, would not be bound to if he had no funds in his pay posses sion It is that he clear could belonging city. equally not take raised law for other moneys, purposes, apply them to this payment.. Take, raised instance, moneys tax for or the lamps, support poor, paving *37 the or other streets, laws the any specific purpose. give treasurer no over the funds the to city, except pay the on draft of the and other officers. comptroller Suppose he should, with this the amounts law, compliance pay losses sustained the are to which said exceed one riot, by million of how the business of the to' be car dollars, city ried on ? made law had been for these Ample provision by if this law is to be those sustained, purposes, yet, moneys must be to the of the riot applied payment claims, left without means for the city wants of the ordinary city, and with strict legal provisions new against incurring any unless authorized the indebtedness, Under by legislature. such would remain provisions but the nothing, application the private property corporation payment these claims. these I have views, heretofore held Holding could not on the the impose corporation to without means, either pay obligation moneys providing or taxation release of the raised taxation moneys the to which from were special purposes they and, applied; the arose as to that when question liability pay to.their from their were money accruing private they to as were not individuals, entitled the same rights to will of bound to hold such legislature. property subject (Gr v. The 5 Abb., v. Haws, People een Barb., v. The Mayor, &c., case of Bailey this theory. New York was decided Hill, upon (3 531), “ If pri Oh. Felsoh, J., purposes says, grant vate emolument, though advantage derive common from hoc, benefit it, quoad ' (cid:127) Mayor, &c., Hbw York. Ingraham, dissenting.
Opinion, per J., “ And as It to be private company.” again, regarded the like distinction that municipal corporations, their as owners of lands and character, occupiers in the same as individual owners are houses, regarded light . and dealt with occupiers, accordingly. of this statute, Hor do I think provision says, final shall Whenever be recovered any judgment “ or such the treasurer of action, such city county said or county shall, upon production filing a certified roll, his office copy judgment pay to parties amount of such entitled party _ judgment the amount thus said paid thereto, charge before stated. relieves county,” objection but as an ad- I limitation, consider this provision would means otherwise plaintiff dition As to a his would judgment. county collecting possess mode of viz., only collecting judgment, probably out of make it lien entitled payment moneys no answer to an of the treasurer. would be the hands direct the treasurer to for a mandamus pay application *38 hands was him his money to reply judgment, it had for which been raised by wanted for other purposes tax. The for him to positive no'provi- direction pay, But it made for the means. whether would or sion is raising if not it is with all still conclusive, not be paid judgment There is no limitation in the statute as to the incidents. is made its collections. statute liable mode of By city for the are to an action such actions sustained, damages same as I see no manner other actions. be conducted issued in like executions not be manner, reason why when a judg- levied upon corporation them. ment is recovered against at these however, to discuss
I do not, questions propose as I understand the views heretofore expressed by length, of Hew York of the court, liability corporation I I entertain. to its adverse to views as regard as to the thus my open opinion power desire briefly express to interfere with private property legislature th^ op &c., New York. 1865.'] dissenting. X, Opinion, per Ingraham, toor it of New York, upon impose corporation it without giving corresponding obligations pay money it to raise the same or to borrow taxation, powers loan. I do be understood as not wish to expressing any far so statute, to the" of this validity opinion adverse or the to make applies county the amount to be raised taxation recovered county charge, but as to loan, "simply right the'legislature impose liabilities of New York such as to bind their recovery. so payment Term conclusion General is,
My judgment should be and that of Term affirmed. reversed, Special affirmed.
Judgment IY. Tiffany.—Yol.